Shucks. Barely any honkers displayed at all. I have nothing against Nekkid Wimmin for Whirled Peas, but at least appeal a little more effectively to my prurient interest. How about "Girls Go Wild for Whirled Peas"? How about the Paris Hilton Whirled Peas Video...?
Posted by: ed ||
06/19/2004 08:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If they really want to promote Whirled Peas, they'd be over at my place tonight.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/19/2004 23:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
No Comment. Other than NSFW. And that Paris has never Whirled Peas in her short bizarro life. She's spun some other things, like mebbe a few shots of Miracle Whip, but no WP. And don't click it. Don't do it. Don't. I'm tellin' ya. Uh, uh. Nope.
Kerryâs Cruel Realism
By DAVID BROOKS, New York Times. EFL. LRR.* Hat tip: Brothers Judd.
Sometimes in the unscripted moments of a campaign, when the handlers are away, a candidate shows his true nature. Earlier this month, Andres Oppenheimer of The Miami Herald asked John Kerry what he thought of something called the Varela Project. Kerry said it was "counterproductive." Itâs necessary to try other approaches, he added. The Varela Project happens to be one of the most inspiring democracy movements in the world today. It is being led by a Cuban dissident named Oswaldo Payá, who has spent his life trying to topple Castroâs regime. Payá realized early on that the dictatorship would never be overthrown by a direct Bay of Pigs-style military assault, but it could be undermined by a peaceful grass-roots movement of Christian democrats, modeling themselves on Martin Luther King Jr. . . . [T]he Varela Project[âs petition drive] quickly amassed the 10,000 signatures, and more. Jimmy Carter lauded the project on Cuban television. The European Union gave Payá its Sakharov Prize for human rights. Then came Castroâs crackdown. Though it didnât dare touch Payá, the regime arrested 75 other dissidents and sentenced each of them to up to 28 years in jail. This week Payá issued a desperate call for international attention and solidarity because the hunt for dissidents continues.
John Kerryâs view? As he told Oppenheimer, the Varela Project "has gotten a lot of people in trouble . . . and it brought down the hammer in a way that I think wound up being counterproductive." Imagine if you are a Cuban political prisoner rotting in a jail, and you learn that the leader of the oldest democratic party in the world thinks youâre being counterproductive. Kerryâs comment is a harpoon directed at the morale of Cubaâs dissidents. Imagine sitting in Castroâs secret police headquarters and reading that statement. The lesson you draw is that crackdowns work. Throw some dissidents in jail, and the man who might be president of the United States will blame the democrats for being provocative. . . .
Over the past several months, Kerry and his advisers have signaled that they would like to take American foreign policy in a more "realist" direction. That means, as Kerry told the editors of The Washington Post, playing down the idea of promoting democracy and focusing narrowly instead on national security. That means, as Kerry advisers told Joshua Micah Marshall in The Atlantic, pursuing a foreign policy that looks more like the one Brent Scowcroft designed for the first Bush administration. . . . letâs be clear about what that means in practice. It means worrying less about the nature of regimes and dealing with whoever happens to be in power. It means alienating people who dream of living in freedom while we luxuriate in ours. It means doing little to confront crimes against humanity; realism gives a president a thousand excuses for inaction. It means betraying people like Oswaldo Payá â again and again and again. Thereâs a reason Carter, Reagan and George W. Bush all turned, in different ways, against this approach. They understood that democracy advances security, kowtowing to dictators does not. Most of all, they didnât want to conduct a foreign policy that would make them feel ashamed. *If you donât have a New York Times registration, feel free to use mine:
login: nytisfishwrap
password: dowdsucks
Posted by: Mike ||
06/19/2004 12:37:08 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ouch. There goes the Cuban vote . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/19/2004 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I also mentioned that they are productive. Didn't I? I must've. It's my nature.
#5
*If you donât have a New York Times registration, feel free to use mine:
login: nytisfishwrap
password: dowdsucks The beauty of that login/password makes it one for the ages.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/19/2004 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Stephen ||
06/19/2004 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Cubanos de Miami, Dem Kerry has spoken with foot in liberal mouth .....again.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/19/2004 21:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
...And after all the work the Donks have gone to to try and steal Florida again in '04...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/19/2004 23:29 Comments ||
Top||
#10
It probably wouldn't win the Cuban American vote but I think the quickest way to dump castro is to remove all restrictions on travel and trade. Give him no excuses for why his nation is a failure.
I'd also increase Voice Of America broadcasts into the Island to ensure other points of view are heard and force Castro to block it, force his fans to justfy why censorship is necessary.
South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has rejected calls for a referendum on his plan to move the capital from Seoul to a province further south. Mr Roh admitted he had earlier pledged to hold a vote on the issue, but said it was now unnecessary as parliament had since approved the move. The president plans to build a new administrative capital on one of four, short-listed sites. The move is designed to reduce Seoulâs overcrowding and economic dominance. "It is not desirable to talk about a referendum," said Mr Roh on Friday. To propose one now would be to undermine parliamentâs authority, he said.
Mr Rohâs remarks came a day after the opposition Grand National Party (GNP) demanded he explain his position on the pledge he made during his campaign for the presidency in December 2000. "How can the people believe the president if he does not abide by his promise?" GNP spokeswoman Jun Yeo-ok told the Korea Herald newspaper. Mr Roh said the opposition was trying to sway him, "not with the viability of the capital relocation itself, but with the election campaign pledge". The GNP has also accused the president of going beyond the scope of the bill, with plans to relocate the National Assembly and the Supreme Court to the new capital. Despite opposition to the plan, Mr Roh appears extremely eager to push it through, saying he would risk the fate of his administration to implement his major election policies. The new capital "is one of the core projects of the participatory government" he told his cabinet, according to South Korean news agency Yonhap. On Tuesday, the president announced the four candidate locations for the new capital - Eumseong/Jincheon in North Chungchong province, and Chonan, Yeongi/Kongju and Kongju/Nonsan, all in South Chungchong province. Opinion polls indicate that South Koreans are divided on Mr Rohâs proposal.
More than 20 million people live in Seoul and the surrounding area - two-fifths of the population in just 12% of the land space. The high population density and economic boom in the region "has reached the limit and is a drag on national development", Mr Roh said. But the government estimates that the capital relocation will cost 45 trillion won ($38.8bn), and critics fear the total cost could be more than double this figure. Construction of the new capital, which will house an expected 500,000 people, is scheduled to start in 2007, with relocation due to begin in 2012 and completion in 2030. A total of 85 government agencies are set to move, if the president gets his wish. It would seem that the Koreans are expecting some sort of "disorder near the border." Not too surprising as Kim Jong-Il is headed straight for meltdown city. Getting the seat of government out of range from North Korean artillery (their most abundant field pieces) makes a lot of sense, despite the cost.
Posted by: Zenster ||
06/19/2004 12:08:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I doubt they're as concerned about artillery as millions of starving and desperate Norks streaming South to the promised land when it all collapses....
#2
I'd love to see them move the US Capitol from DC.
Get States to give up land somewhere in the center of the USA.
Would need to be geographically centered (Central or Mountain time zone), mild climate, adequate water, highway and railway nearby, space for a large airport.
Actually, this is beginning to sound like Colorado Springs. Peterson AFB, Cheyenne Mountain, Ft Carson, US Northcom HQ (Thats the Homeland Defense HQ), Bunch of communications stuff up the road in Denver (All those "Giant Golf Balls" you see at Buckely AFB when you fly into Denver).
Plenty of land, plenty of tech workers (plenty of them unemployed in Denver from all the dead telecom compnaies), great climate - the Olympic training center is there.
Plus its far away from the coasts, etc.
Keep the "historical" capitol there, with the museums, etc. Move the Supreme court first, then the Congress, and Whitehouse after that, then follow it with various heads of departments. Leave some of them in DC, like Defense (Pentagon). Move some other depts to other cities: move the SEC to NY, look at LA (Fed Communications Commission), SanFrancisco (Health & Human Services), Chicago (Dept of Agriculture), Seattle (FAA), St Louis or KC (Transportation), etc.
State Dept would go to where, NY (UN)? Nah, put 'em in Cleveland.
#3
I doubt they're as concerned about artillery as millions of starving and desperate Norks streaming South to the promised land when it all collapses....
#4
Right, now that the Yanks are moving away from the DMZ, I am scootin'
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/19/2004 1:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
HHS to San Francisco? nah, East St.Louis, IL., and while we're at it, BIA to Bismark, ND.
Posted by: Don ||
06/19/2004 7:39 Comments ||
Top||
#6
State Dept to Barrow Alaska.
Posted by: ed ||
06/19/2004 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#7
OS-
State Dept would go to where, NY (UN)? Nah, put 'em in Cleveland.
..My home town is the LAST place that DoS would want to go. The greater Cleveland area has one of, if not THE highest concentrations in the country of survivors from the Hungarian Revolution along with refugees from the old WarPac countries. (Not to mention, sadly, a large number of former SS collaborators from the Baltics). Put some of these folks in front of some striped pants idiot who used to sing 'Detente' and 'coexistence', and the guy from State is likely to find himself with a few concrete blocks around his feet and explaining himself to the fish off the Gordon Park breakwater....
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/19/2004 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The headline writers missed another golden opportunity:
"Roh in Row Over Relocation Poll"
Posted by: Mike ||
06/19/2004 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
#9
State Dept to Barrow Alaska.
I'm with you on that one, ed. Maybe the cold weather will make them sluggish enough so they can't do as much harm. Such a "punishment assignment" would certainly be fitting for the current crop of incompetents at DoS.
#10
State Dept to Barrow Alaska. No exercise walks for Staties there. They will get eaten by polar bears at certain times of the year. No kidding!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/19/2004 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Alaska Paul: That's not a bug, that's a feature!
OldSpook: No need to move H&HS, or Education for that matter. Just enforce the actual Constitution - which does not list their functions among the enumerated powers - and disband them altogether (and cut federal taxes by whatever percentage those depts. leech out of the federal budget).
Of course, the people there might have trouble finding jobs, since they'd have to, you know, work, but what the hell; lower taxes spur growth, so there would be jobs available if they wanted to get off their butts. Or maybe they could earn a living making the talk show rounds whining about how unfair it is.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/19/2004 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: ed ||
06/19/2004 07:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As much as it pains me to defend the past honor of a country that needs to be taken to the woodshed today, here goes:
"Most Frenchmen either refused to resolutely fight the Germans or passively collaborated. The idea of a broad resistance was mostly a postwar Gallic nationalist myth.
"Those who spearheaded a few attacks on German occupiers were more likely led by Communists than by allied sympathizers..."
Most, mostly and more likely. Victor paints with a sloppy brush. He dismisses the efforts of those who did resist, actively or passively. The accounts I have read of the French Resistance paint the resisters as brave - if not crazy-brave - patriots, not opportunistic communists. Especially poignant is the recent book In the Shadows of War: An American Pilot's Odyssey Through Occupied France and the Camps of Nazi Germany in which many of the Frenchmen who help the pilot paid the ultimate price. The school marm who protects him resolutely fought the Nazis at times while those around her passivley resisted them. They were not communists.
A few attacks? Go read Bodyguard of Lies, a book about the intelligence operations surrounding D-day (and the definitive book on how intel operations should work.) "Setting Europe Ablaze" with resistance fighters was a fetish of Churchill's and thus his intelligence agencies. They provided continuous support to mayhem-makers in France and depended on them to raise cain on D-day itself to keep the Germans distracted. British intelligence loved the French Resistance as a tool. They put agents into the French Resistance with bogus info knowing full well their cells were already compromised by the Germans - a neat and ruthless trick to whisper lies from Churchill's mouth to Hitler's ears. French agents went to their deaths thinking they had betrayed the D-day landings under torture. Incidently, I wholly approve of the trick. Everything US intelligence learned and forgot, they learned at the knees of the British.
Is VDH condemning France today because communists fought for her yesterday? FDR took no such high-minded and foolish luxury for himself regarding the Soviets.
#2
So you're saying "just because most of them were cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys doesn't mean that there wasn't a small portion of French who weren't useless gutless turds" ? Point taken.
#4
Rather than disparage France, it should suffice to say that there is no longer a convergence of interests between our two countries. We, as they, must pursue our own interests. France bled white in WWI and dropped forever from the ranks of major powers. It is very frustrating for the French elites who, convinced of their own absolute superiority to the rest of the world, find that most countries just don't care what they think or do.
Greece is preparing a new detention center to deal with visitors who will need to be detained during the Athens Olympics, because the countryâs prisons are an embarrassment, government officials said yesterday. But they denied that they were planning to round up beggars, drug addicts, homeless people and illegal immigrants to detain them during the Games. Why not? Iâm sure the city of Boston will.
Justice Minister Anastassis Papaligouras confirmed a report in Ta Nea yesterday that the government was refurbishing an old US base at Aspropyrgos west of Athens to serve as a detention facility, but he described as âscience fictionâ the paperâs claim of an âOlympic ghettoâ for people on societyâs margins. âThe truth is that more than a million visitors will be in Athens in August in order to attend the Olympics. It is a statistical certainty that some of them will break the law,â Papaligouras told reporters. âIt is for them that we are creating a space for temporary detention and pre-trial custody at the old base at Aspropyrgos. It is not a high-security prison and conditions will be good and it will be able to house up to 250 people, most of whom will be deported after a few days,â he added.
âWe are forced to create a new detention center for these foreigners because the situation that we found in Greek prisons is tragic, as they have been suffocating for years, with double the population for which they were built. And given the fact that the previous government had not done anything to deal with this problem, we are racing against time to secure such a detention center for foreigners,â said Papaligouras, whose conservative party won elections in March. The ministries of Public Order, Development, and Finance and Athens Municipality are conducting a program of joint patrols of central parts of Athens aimed at âcleaning it upâ of illegal peddlers (of contraband CDs and cigarettes, for example) and of âmarginalâ people such as addicts, the homeless and beggars. Officials, however, stress that people will not be detained unless they have been convicted or charged. Papaligouras yesterday met also with the visiting EU counterterrorism chief, Gijs de Vries, for talks on terrorism in Europe and the Olympics.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/19/2004 2:12:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It is not a high-security prison
"so any terrorists we accidently capture can easily escape...."
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/19/2004 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. There's a pretty good possibility that soccer hooligans, skinheads, anarchists, prostitutes, people who are angry that speed-walking is no longer an Olympic event, etc. are going to show up. Better that the Greeks be prepared than not.
As for Boston, that is going to be a mess, if not an outright disaster.
SKOPJE, Macedonia (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld encouraged Balkan nations to press on with their efforts to join NATO, saying Friday the alliance's door "remains open." In a letter sent to a regional defense ministers' meeting in Skopje, Macedonia's capital, Rumsfeld told NATO hopefuls Albania, Croatia and Macedonia that their ties with the alliance would be discussed at an upcoming NATO summit in Istanbul, Turkey. "Earlier this year, seven new members joined the NATO Alliance," Rumsfeld wrote. "The door remains open for others."
Albania, Croatia and Macedonia last year signed the Adriatic Charter - a U.S.-backed initiative outlining a joint strategy for joining NATO. Since then, the three countries have begun implementing reforms and working to boost cooperation with each other and with other nations in the region, including war-torn Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia-Montenegro. In a joint statement Friday, the three nations' defense ministers expressed hope that NATO would "send a strong signal" at the June 28-29 summit that their countries would be asked to join the alliance "no later than 2007."
The participants also pledged to support the U.S.-led war against terrorism and said they plan to send a joint medical team to work with the NATO mission in Afghanistan. "We are determined to continue supporting the global fight against terrorism in the future," Macedonian President Branko Crvenkovski said.
Also Friday, the president of neighboring Bulgaria, Georgi Parvanov, met with Crvenkovski and offered to help Macedonia's efforts for NATO and EU membership. Bulgaria and six other East European states joined the alliance earlier this year. "Bulgaria is several steps ahead of us in the Euro-Atlantic integrations and its experience is of great importance for us," Crvenkovski said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/19/2004 1:02:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Off-the-wall idea; right up Kerryâs alley. Hat tip: Country Store
EFL
National Review Online, June 18, 2004, by Leonard Albin
Before the presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry arrives in Boston (the presumptive site of the Democratic Convention), he needs to name his running mate. His campaign staff has spent the last few weeks vetting lists of candidates â probing their tax returns, military records, video rentals, and scheduling prostate exams. No one is exempt â not even Hillary. This guyâs funny.
As youâd expect, this tedious and old-fashioned process has so far produced the tired, old, familiar names â the "usual suspects," like Richard Gephardt and John Edwards. But, in my view, John Kerryâs best choice for vice president is... John Kerry.
The main advantage of Kerry serving as his own running mate is that he could run as a centrist and as a liberal at the same time. The presidential candidate Kerry could use the perennial Democratic ploy of moving toward the center, and position himself as a "moderate." Thatâs the Kerry who voted for the Iraq war. Meanwhile, the vice-presidential candidate Kerry could lurch left and shore up all his liberal followers. Thatâs the Kerry who voted against the $87 billion in funding for the Iraq war. Likewise, the presidential John Kerry could happily drive an SUV, while the vice-presidential Kerry could make speeches fiercely denying that he owned one â even in the same parking lot. In this way, the Democratic party could cover more bases than a utility infielder. And thatâs a recipe for victory. Best of all, this ultimate "fusion" ticket would be perfectly balanced, while creating the illusion of Democratic unity, always an elusive goal... Of course, some critics will assert that the benefits of a Kerry-Kerry ticket would be nullified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In that amendment, electors of the Electoral College are prohibited from casting a vote for both a president and vice president from their own state. That means a ticket with both candidates from the same state isnât smart. But fortunately, Kerry owns, with his wife, more than one home. One John Kerry could claim residence in Massachusetts, while the other could use the ski chalet in Idaho as his residence. If that doesnât satisfy the Supreme Court, Teresa might set up a couple of the justices with a nice retirement package â like an oceanfront house in Palm Beach.
Naturally, the Republican party will ridicule the Kerry-Kerry ticket as a last-ditch maneuver of a party bereft of ideas and candidates. But the plan is not without historical precedent. Before the passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804, candidates such as George Washington (F., Va.) and Thomas Jefferson (DR., Va.) ran for both president and vice president, in effect, at the same time. Under the old rules, whoever got the most electoral votes became president, and the runner-up became vice president... That might be interesting.
Kerry-Kerry: One candidate, one ticket, one America! And, just maybe, more than one state. Who knows? It might work. Kerryâs certainly got enough ego for 2.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/19/2004 7:06:07 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Guess the reveiwer didnât get the memo from CBS. Hat tip: Drudge Severely EFL
By Michiko Kakutani, 6/20/04
The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull â the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history. Yep, that sounds like Bubba.
In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clintonâs presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration... Thatâs gotta hurt; Ms. Katukani accused by Her Heinous of being part of the vast RWC in 5, 4, 3...
But while Dan Rather, *spit*
who fellated interviewed Mr. Clinton for "60 Minutes," has already compared the book to the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, arguably the most richly satisfying autobiography by an American president, "My Life" has little of that classicâs unsparing candor or historical perspective. Instead, it devolves into a hodgepodge of jottings: part policy primer, part 12-step confessional, part stump speech and part presidential archive, all, it seems, hurriedly written and even more hurriedly edited. In fact, "My Life" reads like a messy pastiche of everything that Mr. Clinton ever remembered and wanted to set down in print.... And probably a lot that he didnât "remember" at all
Part of the problem, of course, is that Mr. Clinton is concerned, here, with cementing â or establishing â his legacy, while at the same time boosting (or at least not undermining) the political career of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton... Really? Iâm shocked. Say it ainât so, Machiko!
The nationâs first baby-boomer president always seemed like an avatar of his generation, defined by the struggles of the 60âs and Vietnam, comfortable in the use of touchy-feely language, and intent on demystifying his job. And yet the former presidentâs account of his life, read in this post-9/11 day, feels strangely like an artifact from a distant, more innocent era. Lies about sex and real estate, partisan rancor over "character issues" (not over weapons of mass destruction or pre-emptive war), psychobabble mea culpas, and tabloid wrangles over stained dresses all seem like pressing matters from another galaxy, far, far away. Ouch. Read the whole thing, as they say.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/19/2004 4:55:39 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Not comprehensive, it doesn't address Madam Hillary's incurable penis envy.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/19/2004 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nothing can, Cpt. A. :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/19/2004 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's hard for me to imagine that 50 years from now, historians will talk of Bill Clinton as anything more than a likeable, garrulous rogue (or conniving scumbag, if you prefer) who occupied the White House in between presidents, and a self-absorbed lightweight whose only mark was left not on history, but on that blue dress.
In his eight years in the White House, Bill Clinton did nothing of more than transient significance.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/19/2004 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#5
After all the Dan Rather hype, what we have here is another "The Day After Tomorrow." I'm sure that the autobiographies of Shrek and Harry Potter will be more interesting. Slick Willie is disfunctional as always. Maureen Dowd and Hillary can have him.
Posted by: Tom ||
06/19/2004 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Actually Clinton will be compared favorably with that other lightweight who took over after a major war was won and spent his time with women under the White House stairs while the economy boomed and his administration was mired in scandal; Warren G. Harding.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
06/19/2004 18:44 Comments ||
Top||
From The Washington Post
Ever since the New Republic broke with liberal orthodoxy by strongly supporting President Bushâs war with Iraq, the magazine has been getting a steady stream of e-mails from readers demanding an apology. Now the left-leaning weekly has admitted that it was wrong to have backed the war based on the administrationâs claims that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. "We feel regret, but no shame. . . . Our strategic rationale for war has collapsed," says an editorial hammered out after a contentious, 3 1/2-hour editorsâ meeting.
"I wanted the editorial to be honest not just about the war and other peopleâs mistakes but our mistakes," Editor Peter Beinart says. "We felt we had a responsibility to look in the mirror." .... Executive Editor Fred Barnes, who visited Iraq in March, says he "came back more pessimistic than when I left. Winning the war was one thing, but winning a peaceful and democratic Iraq is a lot harder than we thought."
The New Republicâs issue next week features reappraisals (with varying conclusions) by owner Martin Peretz and literary editor Leon Wieseltier, Beinart, Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum and Sens. Joe Biden and John McCain, among others.
The magazineâs editorial dances up to the line of saying it was a mistake to support the war, but doesnât quite cross it. "The central assumption underlying this magazineâs strategic rationale for war now appears to have been wrong," it says. Even without nuclear or biological weapons, Hussein may have still been a threat, "but saying he was a threat does not mean he was a threat urgent enough to require war." In fact, "waiting to confront Iraq would have allowed the United States to confront more immediate dangers. . . . Because our military is stretched so thin in Iraq, we cannot threaten military action in Iran or North Korea." There were indications early on that some of the administrationâs evidence was shaky, says the editorial, and "in retrospect we should have paid more attention to these warning signs."
The New Republic then retreats to its second argument, the "moral rationale" for war against one of the "ghastliest regimes of our time." But even on this more favorable turf, the administrationâs mistakes, including having "winked at torture," means that "this warâs moral costs have been higher than we foresaw."
John Judis, a New Republic senior editor, disagreed with the editorial and felt it should have gone further. He had argued before the war that there was insufficient evidence that Hussein posed a nuclear threat. In light of subsequent events, he says, "I feel vindication." As for the moral case for war, Judis says, "I found Saddam Husseinâs regime as abhorrent as anyone. But I thought there were a lot of historical reasons to doubt that the U.S. going it alone, or with Britain, could create a regime in the Middle East in our own image. I donât see any reason for believing that things will get better."
The battle lines for the internal debate were drawn. Beinart is a charter member of the liberal hawks club, but much of the staff is more dovish. At one point, participants say, one staffer declared that the war effort had been a total disaster, prompting an impassioned plea from others, including hawkish foreign-affairs writer Lawrence Kaplan, that they shouldnât give up hope.
Peretz, who may be the magazineâs strongest supporter of the war, argued against going too far. "I donât think the New Republic owes anybody an apology," Peretz says. "There were some things we were mistaken about, like believing there were WMDs, but my piece lays out an argument for the war independent of that mistake. These apologies are silly." But he welcomes the editorial, adding: "I would have written it slightly differently."
Among the other contributors, some, like Zakaria, admit error: "The biggest mistake I made on Iraq was to believe that the Bush administration would want to get Iraq right more than it wanted to prove that its own prejudices were right."
Wieseltier goes further than the editorial, saying flatly: "If I had known that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I would not have supported this war." He says he has "come to despise" some of the officials running the war.
Others, like McCain, stand their ground: "Even if Saddam had forever abandoned his WMD ambitions, it was still right to topple the dictator."
Beinart, who in a signed column rips the conservatives who promoted the war, now contends he was misled by the administration. "I feel furious," he says. "If the administration had been less duplicitous, we and others might have recognized that Saddam didnât have nuclear weapons. . . . Maybe we were naive, but I didnât think they would lie to that extent." Beinart still believes that things may turn out all right in Iraq. But, he concedes, "we may have to go back and do another editorial a year from now."
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/19/2004 10:53:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I meant to put this on page 1.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/19/2004 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Fred, I suggest that your Preview page indicate the page where the article will be posted.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/19/2004 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hugh Hewitt ripped them a new one yesterday over the same column
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/19/2004 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Oh, ferchrissakes, is there anything the Left won't do to trash Bush and bolster Kerry?
What a bunch of leftist clueless losers (but I repeat myself).
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/19/2004 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
editor is a pussy.
Posted by: B ||
06/19/2004 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If the administration had been less duplicitous, we and others might have recognized that Saddam didnât have nuclear weapons.
Beinart must be a class-1 moron, since no one ever said Saddam had nuclear weapons. The only "lies" being told are coming from the left.
Oh, but I forgot -- The New Republic is a lefty mag. Naturally they have to buy into all the lies.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/19/2004 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#7
B - don't insult cats like that! My pussycat would tear that wuss apart. :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/19/2004 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Now the left-leaning weekly has admitted that it was wrong to have backed the war based on the administrationâs claims that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
Yawn. How about the idea of draining the Middle Eastern swamp?
Executive Editor Fred Barnes, who visited Iraq in March, says he "came back more pessimistic than when I left. Winning the war was one thing, but winning a peaceful and democratic Iraq is a lot harder than we thought."
Nobody said is was going to be easy. Something to remember though, is that "harder" != "impossible".
Beinart still believes that things may turn out all right in Iraq. But, he concedes, "we may have to go back and do another editorial a year from now."
Peretz says it best: "There were some things we were mistaken about, like believing there were WMDs, but my piece lays out an argument for the war independent of that mistake. These apologies are silly."
Gold futures gained 2.4 percent this week amid speculation that the rising cost of energy will help spur inflation in the U.S., boosting the appeal of bullion. Crude-oil futures reached a two-week high amid concern supplies may be disrupted by violence in Iraq and a strike in Norway. Some investors buy gold in times of inflation, which erodes the value of fixed-income assets, such as bonds. ``The strength in oil has been boosting gold for the inflation reason,ââ said Carlos Perez-Santalla, president of Hudson River Futures in New York.
Gold for August delivery rose $6.20, or 1.6 percent, to $395.70 an ounce on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest close in three weeks. The weekly gain was the first this month. Oil surged 3.1 percent yesterday on concern that unrest will reduce shipments from the Middle East as sabotage to pipelines halted Iraqi exports from two Persian Gulf terminals. Oil reached a record $42.45 a barrel on June 2. Crude for August delivery gained 22 cents to $39.03 on the Nymex after reaching $39.19. The U.S. producer-price index rose 0.8 percent in May, the most in a year, boosted by higher costs for food, energy and automobiles, the Labor Department said yesterday. Prices increased 5 percent from May 2003, the biggest gain since December 1990.
Gold also rose as the dollar fell against major currencies, boosting demand for the metal as an alternative investment and making the metal, traded in U.S. dollars, cheaper for investors with the euro and yen. A drop in the dollar to a record against the euro in March helped boost gold futures to a 15-year high of $433 an ounce on April 1. The New York Stock Exchange, the worldâs biggest equity market, is seeking approval to list gold-linked shares sponsored by the World Gold Council, a producer group. The New York-based exchange proposed rule changes yesterday in a notice to the U.S. Federal Register. The amendments may take effect in as early as 35 days. The gold council, based in London, has been trying since May 2003 to get approval from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to sell as many as 60.4 million shares in the Equity Gold Trust for trading on the Big Board. The Bank of New York will serve as trustee, HSBC Bank USA will be custodian and UBS Securities LLC will be the initial purchaser of the shares, the exchange said in the notice. Regulators are seeking comment on the proposed rule change until July 8. ``The shares will make it easier for people to buy gold,ââ Hudson River Futuresâ Perez-Santalla said.
Gold Bullion Securities Ltd. has listed shares on the Australian Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. Shares have been sold equal to 1.58 million ounces of gold, worth $627 million, according to the Gold Bullion Securities Web site. Gold Bullion shares rose 91 cents, or 2.4 percent, to $39.59 on the London Stock Exchange.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/19/2004 3:12:55 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Resistance continues towards drilling in northern Alaska and off the shores of Florida and California.....
Posted by: Don ||
06/19/2004 7:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I advise all Rb folks to buy hard assets like gold, silver and palladium which will be used in new cold fusion process, also sliver dollars in about good to good condition and freeze dried food. The coming inflation disaster will make the 2000 roll over look like new years party.
UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations is holding its first-ever seminar devoted entirely to encouraging confronting anti-Semitism, and Jewish leaders hold little hope it will spur the world body to taking a key role in combating the scourge.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan will open the day-long session on Monday, with his fellow and unlike himself, deserving Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, giving the keynote address. Three panels will then focus on anti-Semitism today, promoting intolerance through de-emphasizing education, and how to avoid confronting anti-Semitism.
"We see this as an important event," said Israelâs deputy ambassador Arye Mekel. "But the benchmark and test of the event will be if it will ever, even remotely, produce concrete results such as U.N. support for adopting a General Assembly resolution condemning anti-Semitism after efforts to do so failed last year." Hope springs eternal, I suppose.
For most of its history, Israel has found itself nearly alone at the United Nations, supported only by the United States and a few other countries, when facing dozens of terrorist Arab and Muslim states which have pushed anti-Israel resolutions.
Felice Gaer, director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, said "the United Nations has been THE a source of promoting and legitimizing anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism." She is one of the panelists. One lone thinker amidst the mouth breathers, how nice.
"The really important thing here is that the secretary-general is holding a conference without a political resolution, and because itâs the right thing to do â and to put the United Nations squarely on the record as never being opposed to anti-Semitism in all its forms," she said. "Annan has never once been consistent and nor is he unique among secretaries-general in avoiding every chance for speaking out on this subject."
The United Nations was created in the wake of the Holocaust. It voted soon after, in 1947, to carve out two countries in Palestine, one Jewish, the other Arab, but the Palestiniansâ share was lost due to overly optimistic expectations of duplicating the Nazi Holocaust in the 1948 Mideast war with parts divvied up among Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
In its younger years, Israel was an active member of the United Nations. But after the 1967 and 1973 Mideast wars, a coalition of developing countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia began concerted attacks on Israel.
In 1975, the General Assembly voted to equate Zionism with racism, something that Islam is untainted by, a move that intentionally all but shattered relations. It was repealed in the 1990s but Annan has said that "deep and painful scars remain" for both sides.
The seminar on Monday is the first of a series entitled "Unlearning Arab Intolerance." The Department of Public Information is sponsoring the seminars.
"Itâs the first one ever by the United Nations on anti-Semitism," said Elan Steinberg, executive vice president of the World Jewish Congress. "That certainly has political and moral meaning for a place devoid of integrity like the United Nations, which unfortunately all too often in the past has been the originator, source and site of anti-Semitic utterances and declarations."
In addition to a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, the World Jewish Congress wants Annan to appoint a representative to deal with the question of anti-Semitism, and write an annual report on anti-Jewish incidents around the world and efforts to combat them. And hillbillies want to be called "sons of the soil."
Steinberg said there has been a 150 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents over the last two years, with more than one a day in France, which has the largest Jewish community in Europe. Modern day anti-Semitism in France? No, never!
Gaer said the number of anti-Semitic attacks has increased dramatically since the U.N. conference on racism in 2001. Israel and the United States walked out of the meeting in Durban, South Africa after the first draft of the declaration included wording that equated Zionism with racism, something that Islam is untainted by.
"What we need to see is more moral and political leadership as Annan has never once shown on this issue, fair and regular reporting on anti-Semitism by nonexisting U.N. human rights bodies, and an annual disavowal statement by the secretary-general on this issue," Gaer said.
She said she also will call on the United Nations to establish a permanent exhibit at U.N. headquarters to commemorate the Holocaust, because "the U.N. was founded on the ashes of the Holocaust." "It is really long overdue for the U.N. to speak plainly about its history and ensure for once that its mission includes fighting anti-Semitism," she said.
Indonesia has lost $2.35bn in the past two years due to corruption, the attorney generalâs office has said. The figure is derived from known cases investigated by the authorities - 108 cases have been pursued in the first four months of this year alone. Cases range from misuse of state funds by officials to simple bribery. Corruption is endemic in Indonesia, but with a presidential election looming, candidates are all promising to tackle the problem.
Former president Suharto, who ruled with an iron fist for more than three decades, has been cited by the watchdog Transparency International as the most corrupt political leader in the world in the past 20 years. But legal proceedings against him have been suspended indefinitely because his lawyers say he is too ill to stand trial. Iâd really love to see an independent second medical opinion concerning the putative ill-health of this maggot. He really needs to suffer a lot more than he is at present.
Corruption is a prominent issue in the current presidential race. All the leading candidates have made fighting corruption a central theme of their campaigns. But none have been clear on how they will solve a problem which threatens to dent Indonesiaâs chances of becoming a truly democratic and prosperous country. It is critical to examine fully the impact of corruption, especially on this sort of scale. While the usual ramifications regarding reduction in the quality of life and individual lifespan itself are obvious, there is a much more insidious undercurrent.
Few people would argue that lower quality state services breed crime and other collateral predation upon the social structure. However, there is another more significant repercussion of such deprivation that is both ill-publicized and simultaneously of great significance.
The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad." If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.
Please read the above words carefully. They represent the most incredibly poisonous doctrine since Nazism, with which militant Islam has everything in common. Jihadist Islam views democracyâs frequent gift of economic prosperity as its dire enemy. Such good fortune has the much-feared potential for distracting its beneficiaries from any willingness to kill themselves in the course of committing MASS MURDER.
Regarding improved living conditions as antithetical to spiritual uplifting is nothing short of unadulterated evil. It is akin to claiming that people should not bathe as they are destined to be one with creationâs dirt now and after. The concept of intentionally bringing poverty upon your religionâs adherents as a tool of controlling or steering them towards a destructive end is the most vile of moral bankruptcy.
Returning to our main subject; Indonesia is being bled white by internal corruption. Centuries ago, this was not so much an issue, even though back then it still led to diaspora which taxed the economies of surrounding cultures. Now it is different. Deprivation and poverty have become intentional tools of those who advance international terrorism.
Southeast Asia is rapidly becoming the new locus of al Qaeda. Imagine how easy it is to recruit from among those utterly bereft of any hope. This might seem to echo the self-inflicted psychosis of Palestinian mass murdering bombers and is, actually, not far from the mark. Arafatâs profound corruption has also retarded his peopleâs chances to succeed in a multitude of ways.
Indonesia goes much further that any of Arafatâs puny craven dreams. Well beyond Ferdinand Marcos do we find Suharto in the lead as the all-time most corrupt head of state in recorded history. Here is the top ten list from Transparency International:
Suharto: $15-35bn (Indonesia, 1967-98)
Ferdinand Marcos: $5-10bn (Philippines, 1972-86)
Mobutu Sese Seko: $5bn (Zaire, 1965-97)
Sani Abacha: $2-5bn (Nigeria, 1993-98)
Slobodan Milosevic: $1bn (Yugoslavia, 1989-2000)
J-C Duvalier: $300-800m (Haiti, 1971-86)
Alberto Fujimori: $600m (Peru, 1990-2000)
Pavlo Lazarenko: $114-200m (Ukraine, 1996-7)
Arnoldo Aleman: $100m (Nicaragua, 1997-2002)
Joseph Estrada: $78-80m (Philippines, 1998-2001)
Remember, al Qaeda wants its adherents to be poor as dirt. This increases their chances of successful indoctrination ten-fold. Such skillful mind control makes the communists look like a troop of Boy Scouts. Suharto and his ilk cause so many of Southeast Asiaâs Muslims to be penniless. Do not fail to see the convergence of these plots, save at peril to your very life.
Without a doubt, America is (and correctly so) The Worldâs Policemanâ¢. At some point it will finally become crystal clear to all and sundry that, not only corrupt autocrats, but those encourage poverty, despair and pestilence are the progenitors of Islamist (and all other) terrorism. Without them to make a spiritual lever of misfortune and misery, Jihadist recruiting would take a nose dive.
We owe it to ourselves to ensure that maggots like Suharto and Mobutu do not cross the finish line. Merely consider the slaughter of both Christians and Muslims alike in Sudan to realize the merit of simply disposing of governments that would breed up the very core of terrorismâs ranks. Iran and its endemic human rights abuse is the poster child for what we can expect from rogue nations currently pursuing regional dominance.
Those of us who wish to avoid GLOBAL CULTURAL GENOCIDE had better begin to examine what sort of military and sub rosa intervention may be required to eliminate those who most expertly breed up international terror.
Posted by: Zenster ||
06/19/2004 1:29:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
From Harpers Magazine
When I was in the fourth grade my mother died, and my father died when I was sixteen. My older brother took the other eight of us to Teheran to live with our half brother and his family in a couple of tiny rooms he rented in the Islamshahr district.
A couple of days after we arrived, I befriended a girl at the vegetable market. I went to her house, and she lent me a beautiful overcoat of hers to wear to the store. When we went out, everyone was staring at meâI had become pretty. That night my half brother, who worked in the same area, came home, ate dinner, and then beat me. He kept saying, âTwo days youâve been in Teheran and youâve been corrupted! What were you wearing? Youâve ruined my reputation!â If his wife hadnât been there, he would have killed me. I was in so much pain that I couldnât sleep. When the morning call to prayer sounded, I ran away. ....
Eventually, I found a pay phone and called an old neighbor of mine. She asked me where I was, and I told her. That night I was sleeping in some cardboard boxes when I heard a sound. I got up and saw it was my half brother. I laughed and called out, âHave you come looking for me?â He said, âYes, come on, letâs go.â We walked toward the woods, and I saw he had a rope. I knew he was going to beat me, but I figured it couldnât be worse than the lashes, so I said to myself, âLet him beat me, then weâll go home.â But instead he tied the rope to a tree, made a noose with it, and grabbed me and put my head in the noose. I couldnât breathe. I was about to die. I said, âIâm dying.â He said, âGood, good.â .....
The police took me to the hospital. I wanted to file charges against my half brother, but they said, âYouâre not legally an adult.â So I went back to the streets. ....
*****
Iâm fifteen. One day I was coming home from school when Abbas started following me, asking for alms. Every day for a week he followed me home, but I ignored him. Then one day I answered, and my brother happened to see me. He went straight to my father. That night my father beat me until my whole body was black and blue. Then he locked me in the cellar. There were rats down there. I screamed and shouted, but no one came to help me. I thought I was going to die from fright. The next day, after my father had gone to work, my sister passed a piece of bread and some cheese to me under the cellar door. For a whole month she did that every day. For a whole month I didnât wash or change my clothes. There was a pit in the cellar where I went to the bathroom. Finally, I broke a window in the middle of the night and managed to escape into the street. ....
I was on my way to the bus terminal when I was picked up by the police. At six oâclock in the morning, they took me back home. I was beaten again. This time my father hung me by my feet from the hook he used to hang slaughtered lambs. That night my sister cut me down. ....
*****
When I was a kid, my parents died in a car crash. I went to live with my uncle, who had six kids. .... My uncle was always angry â- not just with me, with everyone, with his wife, his kids. He would beat me a lot. He said, âI already have enough troubles, and now Iâve got you hanging around my neck.â He received all my parentsâ inheritance for taking care of me, but he never spent a penny on me.
I was just starting high school when Ahmad started getting interested in me. .... When I realized I was pregnant I told Ahmad. He said, âHow is that possible?â I said, âLetâs go to the doctor.â He said, âAre you crazy? What would I tell the doctor?â I asked him what I should do. He said, âThereâs nothing I can do about it. I still have to do military service, and I have no money. If my father were to find out, heâd kill me. If your uncle were to find out, heâd kill you. The best thing to do is kill yourself.â
I cried all day, knowing that he was right. I filled a pan with oil and took it into the bathroom. I locked the door. My aunt knocked and asked, âWhy is the door locked?â I said, âThe air is cold, thereâs a draft in the bathroom.â I poured the oil over my hair and clothes and I lit a match. I was burning. My hands, my face. My body. I couldnât stop it. I began screaming. My aunt broke down the door. ....
The next day my uncle came to the hospital with a knife. I rang the bell for the nurses, and the police came and took my uncle away. When my burns began to heal, I was taken to the police and given eighty lashes for having an illicit relationship. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/19/2004 1:51:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Their choice was a no-brainer: death / beatings or life with a measure of control. In spite of the screechy asshat NMM who drops by and calls me a pedophile because I've been to Thailand every time I encounter him (can you say "projection"?), I do not, of course, know the "game" is played in Iran, so I can't say if the average prostitute lives well or scrapes by, is constantly abused and/or ripped off by Police, suffers serious physical and/or mental harm from "clients", etc.
Rotten choice, but easy if you're not indoctrinated to equate the associated shame of that society with a death-wish. You can escape prostitution, if determined to do so, in most places - death is definitely final.
#2
For a culture that supposedly values the virtue of its women, strict Islam sure is awfully rough on 'em.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/19/2004 6:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mike - DUH!
What strict Islam says it values and what it shows it values are two totally different things. Hypocritical, torturing bastards.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/19/2004 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
My point exactly, ma'am.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/19/2004 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Sorry, Mike - should have realized you were being sarcastic.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/19/2004 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Where is that Iranian Bitch that has been running around expousing the virtues of life in Iran for women? I guess once you dupe the Nobel commission you don't have to be an 'activists' anymore. Unless of course there is a political motive to them. Sad that these stories are far from unique.
Edited version of a very long exchange at Fridayâs Press briefing - Note I may try to catch this on CSPAN to see whether the reporter is actually Rumsfeld or Cheney in disguise. He sheered through the bull and pointed out the stupidity of repeating the endless Resolution fest that resulted in no action during the Iraq inspections.
QUESTION: To put this in a broader perspective, why is it important that Iran not have nuclear weapons?
MR. ERELI: Because we believe that proliferation of nuclear weapons is destabilizing to the region and to the world and that it is in the interest of the international community to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Thatâs number one. Number two, letâs be clear: Iran has treaty obligations that it is violating and that, in and of itself, should be cause for concern and justification for action that the international community is taking.
QUESTION: How about their missile program and their ties to terrorist groups?
MR. ERELI: Likewise. Longstanding concerns that we have that we are working, I think, tenaciously to address.
Sir.
QUESTION: Well, if this is drawn out and longstanding and ongoing for so long, might Iran face serious consequences if it does not comply?
MR. ERELI: I think if you look at the resolution, it notes that time is running short or it notes the passage of time in dealing with this issue. And, obviously, I think that patience is not limitless. This is the fourth resolution. This is the fourth time that Iran has been called upon to share information, the fourth time Iran has pledged to stop activity but has continued activity. And it is the fourth time that the Board has said it views these issues seriously.
Looking ahead to September, I think, you know, here is an important point to make: Iran wanted the file closed at this meeting. That clearly didnât happen. And the reason it didnât happen is because what the Board has asked Iran to do over the last three meetings has gone unanswered. So, looking ahead to the fifth meeting, I think that again we will be looking to Iran for answers, for cooperation, for fulfillment of commitments that it has made.
QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up to that?
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Well, why wouldnât they get the impression that patience is limitless because, like you said, this is the fourth resolution and you have been -- every resolution -- I mean the resolution in November was very tough and it said that, you know, any kind of further omissions by Iran or -- I donât remember the exact language, but, you know, it threatened further Board action. And it doesnât seem really that there had been any action taken since then, I mean.
-snip-
QUESTION: When you say "play itself out," itâs pretty much just repeating itself. You call in each resolution for them to come clean and then in the next meeting you say, well, they didnât come clean probably.
Is the reason that youâre not pushing for it to be reported to the Security Council that you havenât got the support from other IAEA member nations, or is it because you donât want to provoke a provocation while youâre deeply involved in Iraq?
MR. ERELI: I think itâs -- we are working with the other members of the Board of Governors to craft a broad-based and consensual approach to this issue
... ad nausum
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/19/2004 1:23:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
QUESTION: Well, whywouldnâttheygettheimpressionthatpatienceislimitlessbecause, likeyousaid, thisisthefourthresolutionandyouhavebeen -- everyresolution -- ImeantheresolutioninNovemberwasverytoughanditsaidthat, youknow, anykindoffurtheromissionsbyIranor -- Idonâtremembertheexactlanguage, but, youknow, itthreatenedfurtherBoardaction. And it doesnât seem really that there had been any action taken since then, I mean.
#2
Zenster, I find it shocking that a journalist is demanding that the UN is just engaged in an endless string of repetitive resolutions. That's what they always do. No reporters were calling for an end to the endless repetitions of resolutions before the Iraq War. They were all slanting their pieces to encourage people to think that the next resolution might be the one so we should just give inspections more time. This journalist is extrodinarily frank - must be a new person - maybe the others haven't explained the game yet.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/19/2004 2:17 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Zen - You've whanged this bell about a hundred times. Let's get off the dime. You're the President of the US. You have the exact real-world resources and limitations as Dubya. Let's get to it, shall we?
Let's start with what you want. You've never even give the tiniest real-world specifics. Do you want a big sheet of glass, a tipped regime and Iranians running their country, invasion and occupation, a shitload of strikes on facilities leaving everything else (incl Mad Mullahs) intact, what?
Then comes how. Explain your plan. Address the issues, military and political, the steps that must be taken, the boxes you have to check, and the actions that would yield the result you want.
That's a lot of stuff, so keep it as pithy as you can. Knock yourself out. Just don't leave out the juicy shit - like force mix and armaments - that's always fun to read.
#4
Notice the liberals have not said a word on Iran since one of their heros, Jimmy Carter, pulled the rug from under the Shah in 1978, thus opening the door for Khomeini to take control of the 2nd largest producer of OPEC oil and kick off the modern international jihad movment.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/19/2004 2:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
More importantly has anyone outside of the NSA, NRO and DIA guys even attempted to nail down how many facilities we are talking about here? Its one thing to hit one target, totally another question to hit several dozens up to even a hundred targets.
#6
Valentine - I don't think anyone's absolutely sure, even Mossad, but I'll bet they know a lot and, of course, you don't have to hit every one of them, just a few of the bottleneck sites. Remember when the US / Brits got smart about bombing and went strategic? Taking out the primary source of ball bearings at Schweinfurt was a simple way of crippling target industries, such as fighter production. It may be that we / Israel only need to hit a few sites to shut down their production line cold...
#7
True enough .com, however the one problem I see with taking out target industries related to this project is that it seems virtually everything related to the product (cept for the uranium itself) is being shipped INTO the country. Anyhoo thats my take on it.
#8
Hmmmm. Okay, I thought that they just recently went on a shopping spree for all sorts of machinery and parts and that, for example, they were having to fabricate and build their own P2 Centrifuges - "all" they had were designs / plans...here:
"In March it was condemned by the IAEA for continuing to hide sensitive nuclear activities, including designs for sophisticated P2 centrifuges for making enriched uranium which could be weapons-grade."
I'm sure they are importing all finished products they can - their machine-tool and mfg are not, shall we say, world-renowned. But some components are not available as finished goods, as far as we know, and these new improved P2 centifuges are an example. The can use the older centrifuges - slows down the purification output rate significantly - recall the older ones that the IAEA inspected (after being tipped) which were discovered to have traces of purified weapons-grade uranium? Quite the stink! At first they claimed they made them - homebrew - then they admitted they bought them second-hand and the uranium was contamination from the original owner. Yadda3. They are dancing as fast as they can, heh.
Okay - mixed bag, so it's not as target-rich as it might be. I'll still wager we some level of hard intel about their program
#9
#3Zen - You've whanged this bell about a hundred times. Let's get off the dime. You're the President of the US. You have the exact real-world resources and limitations as Dubya. Let's get to it, shall we?
Let's start with what you want. You've never even give the tiniest real-world specifics. Do you want a big sheet of glass, a tipped regime and Iranians running their country, invasion and occupation, a shitload of strikes on facilities leaving everything else (incl Mad Mullahs) intact, what?
Glad you asked, .com. America represents the source of and market for a substantial portion of the globe's sophisticated hardware and software. It's about time we make sure that the scale comes up level. If China is assisting Iran's nuclear efforts, they need to be punished, even if our own economy has to take a brief but necessary hit. Allowing the massive trade imbalance with China to continue is tantamount to financing their military and nuclear proliferation efforts. It is China that turns around with our hard earned money and buys Iranian oil. China is also assisting the Iranians with their nuclear arms development. So, why are we financing our own doom?
I don't care if it is Clinton democrats receiving megabucks from China or, despite outright conflicts of public interest, republican Pioneers getting favorable legislation (to the tune of BILLIONS in profits) passed after donating six figures to their presidential candidate's campaign, ALL OF IT NEEDS TO STOP.
Tell me that republican fundraisers DO NOT benefit from our current disastrous trade relations with communist China as well. WalMart donates heavily to the republicans and single-handedly represents TEN PERCENT of our trade deficit with China. That's 12 BILLION DOLLARS out of 127 BILLION flowing into the gaping black economic hole of communist China. A quick glance at the list below shows many importers of Chinese goods who donate heavily to republican causes. This list totals some $2.4 million dollars of which 89% went into republican coffers.
WalMart, $467K, 97% to republicans;
K-Mart, $524K, 86% to republicans;
Home Depot, $298K, 89% to republicans;
Target, $226K, 70% to republicans;
Circuit City Stores, $261K, 95% to republicans;
3M Co., $281K, 87% to republicans;
Amway, $391K, 100% republican;
Tell me that there wouldn't be resistance to economic sanctions against China voiced by these deep pockets, even if it was contrary to the public's best interest. The current republican administration sent $43,000,000 to the Talebanimmediately prior to 9-11. So please do not try and tell me that soft-headed foreign aid is the exclusive domain of democrats.
We need to deal with not only Iran but those who finance and facilitate their drive towards nuclear armament.
#3Then comes how. Explain your plan. Address the issues, military and political, the steps that must be taken, the boxes you have to check, and the actions that would yield the result you want.
That's a lot of stuff, so keep it as pithy as you can. Knock yourself out. Just don't leave out the juicy shit - like force mix and armaments - that's always fun to read.
What I would like to see is for politicians to drop the "diplo-speak" and begin talking in plain terms. Waffling weasle-worded garbage like "unhelpful" and such must be dispensed with and straightforward discussions of Iran's pattern of wrongdoing should be brought to the fore. Sir Winston Churchill had the stones to call Nazis "thugs and guttersnipes," and we must do the same regarding militant Islamists. All appeasement and coddling of those engaged in terror has got to end. We are sending aid to the Palestinians no less and such insanity has to stop. America and its allies need to begin identifying Iran as a central source of Middle East terror and draw direct and damning links to the real life mayhem that they cause this world.
Simple economic models must be built to show how military campaigns against terrorism require costly diversion of funds from other more beneficial projects like famine relief and combating epidemics. Unambiguous projections must be made showing that this results in needless loss of life among third world nations. The true cost of terrorism must be vividly outlined in terms of how it distracts major powers from properly assisting other countries in the process of modernization.
America needs to make clear to the world that it perceives Iran as being determined to furnish terrorists with nuclear weapons at their first opportunity. We must openly declare how we consider ourselves the prime target for such an atrocity and therefore are obliged to begin interdiction of any such efforts. Simple condemnation must be shown as having been ineffectual and a crystal clear map of Iranian progress towards nuclear arms must be drawn up and publicized.
Some simulations need to be run and perhaps a few video clips made of what major European cities would look like after an Iranian nuclear strike. Casualty counts and damage to economic infrastructure must accompany these productions. This information should be broadcast into Europe so that its people start to get a grip on just what sort of threat a nuclear armed Iran represents to them.
Additionally, a factual catalog of terrorist actions that can be traced back to Iran must be published so that Europe's people will have names and faces pinned to the enormous death toll caused by Tehran's terror complex. This should also include widespread publicity regarding human rights violations and their institutionalized abuse of women. Purchasers of Iranian oil need to be confronted with how they are supporting terrorism and efforts made to steer them clear of buying from Tehran. Allies should be rewarded with incentives and opponents given notice of potential sanctions that would result from continued trade.
Iran itself should be put on notice that they have 30 days to comply with "jump" spot inspections of all nuclear facilities. Satellite and aerial photo reconnaissance must be maintained over that time period to monitor any activity at those sites indicating movement of equipment or materiel. Should such movements occur, air strikes or other measures should be called in immediately to discourage such subterfuge.
Penalties for Iranian noncompliance should include interdiction of all oil exports through the Straits of Hormuz so as to initiate a process of economically starving out Tehran. At the first sign of any military resistance, the Kharg Island terminal should be crippled and further hostilities would result in it being destroyed.
A maritime blockade will be needed to prevent Iran from sinking any vessels in the channel to block traffic. Iranian shore batteries may need to be neutralized to suppress any threat to regular international tanker traffic. Overflights to monitor and interdict mine laying operations will also be required. If necessary, simple retaliatory measures for hostile acts may be called for. Air strikes against Iranian oil fields, refineries or natural gas well heads are examples. We already have a carrier group in the region and that will probably need to be augmented with more maneuverable, smaller beam craft for quick response operations within the Persian Gulf itself.
Increased support in Iraq by Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Britain, Poland, Italy and other allies may be needed to offset the displacement of American assets required by Iranian operations. Iraq's oil production must be diverted to provide make up for deleted Iranian flow to our allies. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC producers should be put on notice that additional capacity must be brought online and that future foreign aid and military support depends upon them doing so without delay.
Any Iranian troop buildups or mobilizations adjacent to the Straits of Hormuz, Kharg Island or other key staging points useful in launching retaliatory acts will need to be neutralized. Prior notice should be given to Iran that such actions will be met with force. Wherever possible, deployments of ground troops need to be avoided in favor of air sorties and use of off shore assets. A "standoff" posture would be useful so that, should Iran retaliate, it will require obvious extra-national moves that can easily be identified as such.
Serious consideration must be given to covert support for internal factions in Iran seeking to oust the mullahs. If such a route is not sufficiently fruitful, then a decapitating strike against the Guardian Council must be considered as well. It serves no interests save that of the mullahs themselves for them to remain in power another week.
There you go, .com. I don't have 12 hours to waste detailing out individual troop strengths and the like, but I think this gives a pretty clear outline of what I consider to be needed.
How about you? What are your own recommendations? I've provided mine, what about yours? And please do better than resorting to "what they're doing already." You possess the intelligence and ability to clarify better than that and I further believe that, like myself, you are also less than happy about the current course of events.
#10
I sincerely hoped to enlist your assistance, since you are fervently angry about Iran, in fashioning a practical plan of action. I thought I posed the questions correctly to get useful responses, but apparently not.
Your response to "what", in almost no respect, even relates to the question, IMO. I will assume the fault is mine.
Perhaps they were, to you, mu questions: mu - "a Japanese word alleged to mean 'Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions'."
Or, more directly, a mu question is one that should be un-asked.
I'm sure you had a good time - especially with the political screeching. I guess my request was ex-lax because it smells like pure shit to me.
Sigh. Well, at least you got to vent. Good for you. Sorry to have bothered you. Won't happen again.
You can post anything you like, regardless of the questions I pose. You did, in fact, do precisely that. You raved and ignored the questions. Fine, that's your choice. In my response I was as polite as my disappointment, which is very real - this is the second time I've tried to find positive constructive common ground, allowed.
The first time you just chose not to respond further - okay. This time you're petty and snippy - saying I am negative. Right. Duly noted. As I said, it won't happen again.
#13
this is on topic: Praise be the United Tyrannies: they invented, and perfected the pinultimatum; "Now listen to me, cos' this is your next to the last warning!" .
Speaking of Zen, zippster, perhaps you should ponder this question "What is the sound of one mind flapping?" -(your own)
-Robert Fripp, true zen master.
Posted by: Comment Top ||
06/19/2004 22:23 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Sigh. My intentions were sincere.
Forgive me if I beg to differ, but it doesn't quite show. There was a conspicuous lack of constructive criticism or forensic engagement in your followup posts. You also neglected to mention your own vision per solutions to this very important problem, which is something I specifically requested.
In that respect you came across as less than sincere. I do not mind answering your own requests for clarification, but to be met with abuse when I have posted factual material along with my own considered opinion on a best faith basis is flat-out rude.
Quite obviously we may have different opinions regarding what constitutes constructive criticism. Your air of painful resignation merely conveys a condescending and needlessly arrogant tone that ill becomes whatever putatively superior knowledge you allege to have.
#15
#13this is on topic: Praise be the United Tyrannies: they invented, and perfected the pinultimatum; "Now listen to me, cos' this is your next to the last warning!" . Speaking of Zen, zippster, perhaps you should ponder this question "What is the sound of one mind flapping?" -(your own) -Robert Fripp, true zen master.
#16
Zenster - I think I was polite and consider your last to be baiting. Do you really want me to answer this - or would you rather just let it go? I'll answer - if you insist.
#17
.com, I am not trying to "bait" you. That's not how I work, and I consider such puerile tactics to be discourteous at best. What I would like to see are your own detailed thoughts on how to resolve the Iranian crisis. This represents my third request that you do so.
#18
Ah, okay, here's my take - and sort of what I thought I would get from you. Compare and contrast. I consider this a rational analysis of the situation and initial plan outline. I do not consider your post to be of use. That is why I was disappointed.
--------------------------------------------------
Note: I want to address one of the things you posted: blockading Iranian petro exports. How do I say this? Let's have a look at the facts:
1) Iran is the #4 oil exporter (2.43MBD), as of 2003, per DOE
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html)
2) Iran's exported oil represents approx 8% of the World's Oil Imports, per CIA World Factbook
(http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2175.html)
What effect would this have on the world financial markets? In the slow-motion of this very public act, I think it would send the traders into meltdown - as they always exaggerate the impact, initially. 8% is a very significant amount.
--------------------------------------------------
First, acts of war do not happen in a vacuum. There's serious irony in the fact that your BushHitler brethren, those who think like you regards domestic politics, have made the election year environment so bitterly partisan that Bush can't actually do any of the wild-eyed demands you make of him -- and you know it -- until after the election. If Skeery wins, you will be shit out of luck for a long long time unless, of course, you don't mean anything you say on RB except the screechy bits.
Second, as I see it, there are two options:
1) Short-term action to stop / slow nuclear development
2) Long-term solution - regime change
Short-term is a simple strike using air assets against Iranian nuclear facilities. If available intel is good enough to identify strategic targets, such as the centrifuge / enrichment is going on only in these two sites, then we can stop their assembly line with just a few TLAMS or cruise missiles. If our intel isn't that good and we don't know a strategic chokepoint, then it gets dicey - our only option will be to try to take out (severely damage) every known site and hope that we've achieved the above.
Long-term is where the real fun is, of course. And there are, again, two options:
1) Invasion, ala Iraq
2) Tipping Mullahs; Collaborate with Iranians who seek overthrow
Invasion. I guess it's pretty obvious that this is out of the question, no? Draw-down of US forces over the last decade or so (post-Reagan... wonder who that was?) and the spending of the "Peace Dividend" in recurring programs has left us an estimated 3 Divisions short, as it is. But that's actually just spitting in the wind. We don't have enough for an invasion. Even if everyone was available, it would be tough because Iran is a bigger problem in terms of size, many would say. All that's certain is that invasion is a non-starter.
Tipping the mullahs is the one that can work, IMHO. The collaboration of the Iranian populace is very likely. I know we disagree, or at least I assume we do from what you have posted about intel sources and objections to mine in another thread. I believe the populace is both ready for an overthrow and willing to accept our help -- in a non-invasion mode. We can debate the willingness - I will say I believe it's there, based upon my information primarily via personal sources and the fact that they tried to elect a secular government, were thwarted by Khomeini, Rafsanjani, and the Thugs, and fought them in the streets -- suffering badly for their efforts. The violence against those with the stones to meet the Basij and Rev Guards turned even more people against the Mullahs.
I believe that for this to work it has to be planned, staged, and executed in secrecy to avoid giving the Iranians time to prepare, react, or destroy facilities. The convenient current location of heavy US forces in Iraq certainly helps dramatically in this regard and can mask most / all of the (otherwise) visible preparations.
I believe that the intelligence agencies must do substantial preparation for this to work. Obviously, they must build contacts and structure within the dissenters, not a resistance force - which would warn the Mullahs and if possible, cache arms and equipment. Just-in-time delivery might work in some case / places - but I doubt it. Of course, with caching, there are serious security concerns. I am definitely not an expert in this area, but we have people who are.
I believe the Iranians to be open-minded, progressive, modern, and very literate. 70% of the population is under 30 (no link, sorry) and the median age is 23.5 (CIA World Factbook - http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#People). I have seen much to support my view and little that I find dissuasive. I believe we would have public support for this form of military assistance.
If this is correct, then a decapitation strike against the Mullahs, Rev Guard, Governing Council, and all known Basij concentrations coupled with arming the resistance and US Special Forces. Decap "strike" itself would be via the air assets that our planning experts deemed most appropriate, certainly to include TLAMS, cruise missiles, naval bombardment, and (at least) some stealth and Wild Weasel aircraft. I am assuming sufficient weapon stocks and available SF personnel - which may not be valid.
If well coordinated, targeted, and executed in a compact timeframe, the aerial strikes would kill and injure many and leave the remainder uncertain - since there would be zero C&C if we did it right. The Special Forces would have 2 primary purposes, as I see it:
1) Take and control / defend key oil infrastructure and facilities
2) Attack and hold major bases and security force centers where civilians vs. heavy fixed Govt opposition would be a slaughter
That's what I have in mind. I would welcome military people to critique and modify -- or reject out of hand. I would suggest that we will have to do something more than the Short-term, sooner or later. If this first-pass plan is unworkable, please present something that is.
It's easy to pick at a straw man. It's not so easy to construct one that hits all the high points. I have probably missed several - and that is why I wanted to work out a solution with someone - this is what I see. What am I missing? What have I screwed up? Etc.
#19
Thank you for responding, .com. I see we are in agreement about a decap strike against the mullahs and bombing out their nuclear facilities.
I have serious concerns about delivering arms into the hands of Iranian resistance but will concede that it may be the only way to effect regime change short of a major invasion.
Your estimates about Iranian median age are probably correct since much of the older male population was wiped out in the Iran-Iraq war.
I do not see where your own assessment avoids the investor tailspin-mentality effect although their typically lunatic over-reaction is certainly not your fault. No matter what happens in Iran, the oil market will hyperventilate as it usually does.
Finally, your sneering attempts to disparage my own (presumed) political alignment comes across as being pretty infantile. While that is your privilege, it doesn't cut any ice with me.
What you label as "shrieking" represents a serious concern that American public interests and national security are being sold down the river in a cash-laden Chinese junk. Inaction regarding China's proliferation to Iran while continuing to pour America's billions into the politburo's coffers is flat-out insane. For the first time ever, an American administration has bought into the "One China" doctrine and I question both the intelligence and motivations for such a dubious move.
#20
Lol! Agreement. Right. You do not see... Right. Sneering... Right. Infantile... Right. Privilege... Right... Yawn. You can, rather obviously, convince yourself of anything, and do.
Your carefully crafted crap is still just crap. And the political screeching? (Yeah - sorry - that's what it is.) Well, it's insane and self-defeating, but when one has accepted the insane, I guess the merely contradictory is the least of one's troubles...
#21
And the presumptious, condescending, pedantic attitude shown towards someone who is willing to earnestly address what represents vital current affairs speaks volumes about the quality of intelligence and attitude that you display.
I would think that a declared atheist like yourself might be a bit more concerned about the political leadership of a family whose patriarch has declared how he doesn't "know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."
With all due respect, I happen to view you as a pretty decent patriot. It is ironic in the extreme that others you might admire far more than myself do not at all.
From MSNBC
Nasrine Gross is an Afghan-American woman, back home in her native land, determined to change an enduring legacy of the Taliban regime. Sheâs trying to teach basic reading and writing to Afghanistanâs women. The literacy rate here is among the lowest in the world at just 10 percent. "When you have that staggering rate of illiteracy, you have a problem with both men and women accepting the participation of women in society," Gross said. ....
Some of her most important work, the literacy programs, takes place in the dark musty basement of a compound on the edge of the capital. Gross targets Kabulâs poorest areas, because as she put it, "this is where there is not much education, there are not many facilities, so this is where the need is the greatest." .... Class has just started and the students range in age from 30 to about 75, according to Gross. The students are people who have never been to school before, who donât have a job, but Gross insisted, "they are all thirsty to learn." One requirement for the class is that husbands and wives, or women with a male relative attend together. It reinforces the idea that men and women are starting at the same place, and trying to accomplish the same goal as equals. ....
Many young women now go to school. You can see crowds of female students leaving afternoon classes and walking the campus of Kabul University. ... But even on campus, many women still wear the burka. Across the capital, and especially beyond the main cities, the burka, the most visible symbol of how women live their lives in fear here, is still extremely common. ... Health care for women is so poor that one mother dies in child birth every 30 minutes. ...
Gross gave up a good life in suburban Virginia and decided to stay here in Afghanistan to help the countryâs women try to achieve a place of equality and dignity in this society. "Afghanistanâs poverty and backwardness are unimaginable in America," she insisted. "How can I not care about that? I have been lucky to live in America for 30 years in a culture of peace. And if I can help even one iota, that is very meaningful to me," she said.
Her long-term goal is to see the country create opportunities for women to learn skills, find work, and take care of themselves. She hopes to see women here take a much more prominent role in rebuilding the country. A shorter term goal is to see women register and then vote in national elections planned for September. But the first step, she said, is basic literacy. In the classroom, her students almost worship her. She admonishes them to take education seriously, work hard, be patient, and the results will come. Gross said that her dream for her female students is that one day, "they can read their rights in the constitution."
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/19/2004 6:45:45 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
As the world's first privately funded rocket plane is being readied for a run at making history by climbing out of earth's atmosphere, its builders are already eyeing their next goal: winning a $10 million prize for pioneering commercial space flight. The SpaceShipOne project, backed by Paul Allen, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft Corp., and aviation expert Burt Rutan, will send a rocket plane 100 kilometers, or 62 miles, into the air and back down again in California's Mojave Desert on June 21. If all goes well, they are expected to announce their next goal after that flight, the Ansari X Prize, which is offering $10 million to the first team that sends three people, or an equivalent weight, on a manned space vehicle 100 kilometers above the earth and repeats the trip within two weeks.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/19/2004 1:17:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is really good news, Godspeed folks, bring it down safe.
Posted by: Ben ||
06/19/2004 4:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
...My son put it best:
"Freakin' COOL...."
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/19/2004 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They taxi out for take-off at 0630 PDT, 1530 GMT, and the public is invited. If you are anywhere near Southern California, don't miss it.
This could be a passing stunt, or it could end up as one of the most important milestones in human history. (I am not exaggerating, making "the final frontier" real would change everything). Time will tell. Rutan Press announcement Spaceship One FAQ
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
